suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby akula » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:39 am

this kind of BS happened in my league a while ago.
A 'dead team' (who hasn't checked his team for over 2 months now , and to date made ZERO adds/drops, zero trades except the BS trade) traded his Roger Clemens for Pat Burrell (from the commissioner, real life buddy, who even has his account password). The problem is, the dead team already has 5 OFs on his team, and Burrell will be the 6th (who he promptly starts over Eric Byrns for the past 2 months). Yeah Clemens isn't exactly an ace now and when the trade happened, Clemens hadn't made his decision to come back yet,but still this is definitely a collusion. Burrell at that time was on the verge of being dropped, but his O-Rank was close to Clemens, so my commissioner called up his buddy and made the deal, taking a chance on Clemens and using the close O-Ranks as disguise.

To me, apathy owner who is making trades with friends for any offer and doesn't care about winning, is collusive behavior and trades should be vetoed. You have to look a trade based on value, need and competitiveness. In our cases, value is close, but need makes zero sense and competitiveness is affected, so borderline veto.

However, if a manager is active but likes to collect his favorite players (despite them having little fantasy values, like trading Chris Young(SP) for Kevin Youkilis), is not collusion, just stupidity on the owners part.
akula
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 614
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:05 am

akula wrote:A 'dead team' (who hasn't checked his team for over 2 months now , and to date made ZERO adds/drops, zero trades except the BS trade) traded his Roger Clemens for Pat Burrell (from the commissioner, real life buddy, who even has his account password).

There's ^ your main problem. The commissioner _apparently_ cares more about winning than promoting a competitive league.

akula wrote:The problem is, the dead team already has 5 OFs on his team, and Burrell will be the 6th (who he promptly starts over Eric Byrns for the past 2 months). Yeah Clemens isn't exactly an ace now and when the trade happened, Clemens hadn't made his decision to come back yet,but still this is definitely a collusion. Burrell at that time was on the verge of being dropped, but his O-Rank was close to Clemens, so my commissioner called up his buddy and made the deal, taking a chance on Clemens and using the close O-Ranks as disguise.

To me, apathy owner who is making trades with friends for any offer and doesn't care about winning, is collusive behavior and trades should be vetoed. You have to look a trade based on value, need and competitiveness. In our cases, value is close, but need makes zero sense and competitiveness is affected, so borderline veto.

However, if a manager is active but likes to collect his favorite players (despite them having little fantasy values, like trading Chris Young(SP) for Kevin Youkilis), is not collusion, just stupidity on the owners part.

Yeah, I'd agree that situation smells.

On the otherhand, Burrell is making up for lost time (I picked him up a week ago as my #5 OF, and am loving every minute of it), and Clemons hasn't exactly been lights out (3-5, 3.92 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 43 Ks in 64.1 IP). So, not sure who got the better end of that deal.

All in all, it's very hard to be objective in these situations as an invested member of the league, and all situations are different.
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st], '13, [1st/2nd], '14, [1st/1st]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5657
(Past Year: 244)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:12 am

The more recent trade described in this thread kind of tells you why the first trade never should have been allowed. The first trade was not made with manager B's interest of improving his own team. It was merely to help out a friend. Merely making it fair-ish does not excuse the fact that it does not represent an effort on his part to improve.

These kind of deals are NOT what fantasy baseball is about.

Now you have a second deal which is blatantly unfair and it is kicking dirt on the credibility of the first trade. The first trade would not have gone through in any league that I commission, take me or leave me as a commish.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:25 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:The first trade was not made with manager B's interest of improving his own team. It was merely to help out a friend.

I understand where you are coming from, but the evidence in the IM log does not support the statements you just made for reasons already stated. You are reading between the lines. You may be correct, but you just as likely are not.
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st], '13, [1st/2nd], '14, [1st/1st]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5657
(Past Year: 244)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:58 pm

Bwanna wrote:On the otherhand, Burrell is making up for lost time (I picked him up a week ago as my #5 OF, and am loving every minute of it)

Sidenote: Another dinger today for my man Pat. Woo.
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st], '13, [1st/2nd], '14, [1st/1st]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5657
(Past Year: 244)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:54 pm

Bwanna wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:The first trade was not made with manager B's interest of improving his own team. It was merely to help out a friend.

I understand where you are coming from, but the evidence in the IM log does not support the statements you just made for reasons already stated. You are reading between the lines. You may be correct, but you just as likely are not.


I disagree. I don't think I'm reading between the lines. If anything, the line I omitted in my first glance over the IM is the superfluous one. He was totally disinterested in the league. He responded to the order to trade Figgins with total cooperation, "depending on who you offer" is the most uncharacteristic comment in the conversation given his behavior before and after the trade.

Trading is not for the disinterested. You trade to improve your own team, not to accomodate another. His position was one of accomodation from the start. I could never endorse such behavior and his apathy was clear in the subtext. Though equal in value (which some may argue is enough in and of itself to excuse it) the trade was collusive in nature.

I don't buy the "wolves smelling blood" nonsense. What the wolves are smelling is apathy. This manager's behavior has already compromised the integrity of the league. The second place team was exactly correct in his disdain for the original trade.

If nothing else, the evidence we now have paints the previous trade in an unflattering light in hindsight. I didn't need this new trade though. I saw it coming a mile away.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:01 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
I don't like any deals to take place including a "dead team."


I understand that to be your opinion and I can respect that but that doesn't mean that the guy that slept all weekend shouldn't get the last doughnut if he happens to wake up in time. Timing is everything. Personally, I have no problem with this 1-for-1 deal. Since we have looked deeper into it, I still have no problem. While I hate that anyone would neglect a team, that isn't reason enough for me to just outright veto an otherwise fair deal.


Do you not buy into the idea of collusive apathy. Manager B covered his bases, to an extent by saying "depending on who you offer" initially, but the peripheral considerations point to him not caring at all about his team. The more recent trade proves my initial impression of Manager B's attitude. I think both trades are total travesties.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:49 pm

It's fun to speculate and we're doing an awful lot of it here (and it's fun to discuss what-ifs) when only the league members really know what's going on. CBMGreatOne, you sound like a great commish, and I'm playing the role of devil's advocate a bit just for the sake of discussion.

The point I wanted to emphasize from the beginning is that teams which have a high place in the standings are often the victims of collusive behavior simply because of their place in the standings. Other competitive owners, especially those that stand to gain ground by blocking a trade that might give an advantage to such a team, will often make all kinds of accusations that on the surface might have merit, but would never even be an issue for a very active, but last-place owner that made the same offer/deal. I've seen it happen too many times, and it's very hard for a commish to be objective if he stands to gain in the same way. You just need to be very careful not to penalize active, aggressive owners for being active and aggressive.

One good litmus test is to ask yourself, "If Owner Z who is in last place and is trying his best to compete, were to make this same offer to Team B, would the same objections be made at the same volume?"

Have we made dogfood out of this horse yet? ;)


BTW, whenever anyone offers me a trade for one of my players, I'm initially going to express disinterest. In fact, I'm characterized by expressing disinterest in trade offers. Am I genuinely disinterested? No, but I sure don't want them to know that I've been eyeing a deal like this for a month. It's all part of the process. If you jump up and down and start hyperventilating over the first offer a guy makes, you've got a bit to learn about negotiating a trade.

CBMGreatOne wrote:I think both trades are total travesties.
"total travesties"? Please.
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5657
(Past Year: 244)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:25 pm

"total travesties"? Please.


A travesty is merely something that never should have happened. To what extent it is a travesty is irrelevant to the fact that, in my mind, it inarguably is one.

Maybe Bondo for Figgy doesn't ruin the league, maybe it does. I merely know that the guy trading Figgy had no interest in Bondo. His interest was in helping a friend. "Dead teams" shouldn't trade and this situation is precisely why.

I don't want to penalize active owners either, but inactive owners can't engage in collusion, and that's what has been going on here.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:52 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
I don't like any deals to take place including a "dead team."


I understand that to be your opinion and I can respect that but that doesn't mean that the guy that slept all weekend shouldn't get the last doughnut if he happens to wake up in time. Timing is everything. Personally, I have no problem with this 1-for-1 deal. Since we have looked deeper into it, I still have no problem. While I hate that anyone would neglect a team, that isn't reason enough for me to just outright veto an otherwise fair deal.


Do you not buy into the idea of collusive apathy. Manager B covered his bases, to an extent by saying "depending on who you offer" initially, but the peripheral considerations point to him not caring at all about his team. The more recent trade proves my initial impression of Manager B's attitude. I think both trades are total travesties.


Look. I may be ignorant here because I only play in leagues where I know the people and they are active. That said, I really think that you overanalyze each and every trade in order to find a reason to veto. While I hate that an owner is neglecting his team, this is a fair deal. The fact that the guy said "depending on who you offer" even strengthens this argument, IMHO. You would have a case if he said that he would trade him for anyone but that was clearly not the case here.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 22:12 hours
(and 95 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact